FM4 Section B - Spectatorship: Popular Film & Emotional Response
case study films
Thursday, 20 March 2014
Wednesday, 12 March 2014
The Legitimacy of Violence - Dark Knight Context Homework
The Dark Knight and the Legitimacy of Violence
Taylor
Marvin
So who else is excited for The Dark Knight Rises?
In preparation for the new movie I rewatched The
Dark Knight. What’s most striking about the film is its thematic
and conceptual differences from its predecessor, Batman
Begins. At its heart Batman Begins is a fantasy movie — a good one, but
whose ninjas, order of assassins based in the Himalayas, and
foggily gothic vision of Gotham hints at a world more fantastical than ours. The
Dark Knight, in contrast, feels disturbingly real. This reality is
the film’s greatest achievement, and director Christopher Nolan knows
how to use it. Why does the films’ evocation of dread work so well? Because the
realism of The Dark Knight’s fiction gut punches us into believing
it could actually happen: costumed vigilantes aside,
Gotham’s social breakdown isn’t unimaginable in a northern
Mexican metropolis.
It’s this social breakdown — the loss of government’s monopoly
on violence — that’s the film’s central theme. Heath
Ledger’s hyperactively schizophrenic Joker is so compelling because
Ledger was an amazing actor, but also because he embodies
an anarchic concept of state failure that’s deeply foreign to most
audiences. The Joker’s insistence that “the only sensible way to live in this
world is without rules” is disconcerting because it is true — in the
absence of the social order guaranteed by government’s monopoly over the
legitimate violence no social norms survive, or at least
that’s what we fear. This motivation is compelling and disturbing because we
fear that he’s right; that in the absence of a guarantee of social
order successful individuals are those best able to employ violence, something
most of us aren’t very good at. This vulnerability is disconcerting. Human
psychology, and by extension society, is very careful to draw a line between
legitimate and illegitimate violence, a distinction that rests in the concept
of the state. Violence within the structure of
governmental monopoly on force is psychologically acceptable;
violence outside of it isn’t. The Joker knows this,
and’s explicit about the distinction:
This is a compelling distinction, and numerous films have
attempted to explore the disturbing ramifications of how humans behave when
violence is legitimized: in the horror genre, notably 1971′s Straw Dogs. Of course, The
Dark Knight’s central
thesis is that social norms don’t break down in the absence of
governmentally-imposed order. But this isn’t a happy revelation. The fact that
one man can demolish governmental authority in Gotham and strain social order
to the breaking point illustrates just how illusionary the foundation
of order society — and our comfortable lives — rest on actually
is. Commissioner Gordon and the impartial state authority he
personifies nominally guarantees Gotham’s social structure, but can’t function
in its absence. Only vigilantism — by definition violence outside of state
legitimacy and what’s, in the Joker’s words, “part of the plan” — can. While
Nolan retains a positive view of individuals’ behavior
in extraordinary circumstances, his depiction of
the resilience of social norms that flow from the state’s security
guarantee is decidedly more skeptical.
The Joker’s campaign to destroy social order in Gotham is an
insurgency whose use of terrorism and the media to inspire panic are
strongly reminiscent of the US’s recent COIN efforts. I doubt these
illusions to modern counterinsurgency are unintentional: Michael Cain’s Alfred
directly references British counterinsurgency in Burma (though the British
colonial period in Indochina doesn’t seem to work with Alfred’s age). Despite
his capture at the film’s close, the Joker’s insurgency meets its political
goals by corrupting Aaron Eckhart’s DA Harvey Dent and demonstrating the
fragility of Gotham’s political order. The Dark Knight Rises appears to continue with this theme,
but brings the threat of insurgency closer to home. The trailer alludes to the
danger of social unrest seeded by rampant inequality, and Tom Hardy’s Bane
appears to harness anger within Gotham’s social structure — unlike the
Joker’s external disruptive force — to again upend order. Christopher
Nolan views anarchy with dread, and human behavior in the absence of
state-imposed stability is the central theme of his trilogy. Batman’s position
within this social order is unclear. A vigilante, Nolan’s Batman is emblematic
of a failed state: if Gotham’s legitimate institutions could guarantee
stability, Batman would have no reason to exist. Similarly, unlike previous
visions of Batman Nolan’s Bruce Wayne doesn’t fight crime out of civic duty; he
does because he a deeply damaged individual incapable of dealing with loss and
forming real relationships. This completes the foil between Nolan’s Batman and
Joker. Just as the Joker likens himself to a dog chasing a car that wouldn’t
know what to do if he he caught it, Bruce Wayne’s personality becomes more and
more invested in the construct of Batman rather than himself: ending his
vigilante quest ends himself. The Joker knows this, even if Wayne himself
doesn’t. Rachel does too.
When
counterinsurgency forces — including individuals — invest their core
organizational credibility in open-ended missions,
their indefiniteness becomes self-fulfilling. In previous entries in
the Batman canon the Dark Knight’s use of violence outside of the state
monopoly is legitimate,
though writers hedge their position through Bruce Wayne’s
obstinate refusal to kill (though I’m pretty sure a lot of the criminals
Batman beats die in the hospital: as Archer fans know, getting knocked out is really bad for you). Christopher Nolan isn’t
so sure of Batman’s legitimacy. Nolan’s Batman is one of the ‘good guys’ but
he’s not “part of the plan”: his existence violates social norms and is destabilizing. It’s
this theme of escalation — Batman’s violation of social norms draws the Joker’s
more violent deviation — that dominates The Dark Knight. Bruce Wayne’s
motivations are noble, but violence outside of the state monopoly on
force is always destabilizing. Nolan’s Batman isn’t a
civic-minded champion: he’s a tragic hero.
QUESTIONS:
QUESTIONS:
1. What does Marvin
suggest is the reason for The Dark Knight
being able to evoke dread in its spectators?
2. “Commissioner
Gordon and the impartial state authority he personifies nominally guarantees
Gotham’s social structure, but can’t function in its absence.” – Considering this quote, what emotions is Nolan
attempting to make us feel towards the characters of The Joker and the police
force?
3. How is
Harvey Dent an example of the success of terrorism?
4. How does
the use of violence by Batman subvert our expectations of the superhero genre?
Tuesday, 25 February 2014
Lesson 4 - TITANIC Homework
Read through the article and answer the questions on the handout that your teacher will give to you.
This is a long piece of reading so if you are uncertain of anything in the article, underline or make a note of it.
Your teacher will go over the answers on the handout and clarify any questions you may have in the next lesson.
This is a long piece of reading so if you are uncertain of anything in the article, underline or make a note of it.
Your teacher will go over the answers on the handout and clarify any questions you may have in the next lesson.
Lesson 4 - Recap on Key Issues / Theories around Spectatorship
*** APOLOGIES THE READING BELOW IS UPSIDE DOWN - TO BE SOON RECTIFIED!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)